Friday, March 19, 2010

Climate Denial - Crock of the Week

Are climate-change deniers and climate-change believers divided down the same lines as pro-gun activists and gun control activists? Are they more-or-less divided into conservative and liberal? This came via a wonderful post on Mother Jones.

5 comments:

There's a lot in common between gun loons and the the anti-climate change types. "Anti-science" is a pretty apt description.

Whenever one engages a gunloon, it is impossible to do so on the basis of science. To the gunloon, all science is biased. Further, the gunloon much prefers to rely on anecdote rather than scientific evidence.

Are climate-change deniers and climate-change believers divided down the same lines as pro-gun activists and gun control activists?

I would imagine there's some correlation, which seems to be good enough for you.

I, however, being the individual that I am (have I mentioned that that's what I am--recently?), am something of the fly in that ointment, because I consider myself to be borderline hardcore when it comes to gun rights advocacy, and yet I do take seriously the threat of human-induced climate change.

And just think, if politicians who support an aggressive approach to dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions would also support gun rights--or would at least credibly vow not to try to trample them--people like me would support them.

In that way, a big believer in "collective responsibility," such as yourself, Mikeb, should be able to see that "gun control" is part of the problem in fighting climate change.

Zorro, Your ability to twist the argument around and turn it into a joke is priceless, as evidenced by this:

"In that way, a big believer in "collective responsibility," such as yourself, Mikeb, should be able to see that "gun control" is part of the problem in fighting climate change."

I'm not being sarcastic, I laughed out loud. Your wit and intelligence are a pleasure to behold.

But, you also said that you are "something of the fly in that ointment," being a gun rights activist and a believer in human-made climate change, which makes me wonder why you immediately prededed that remark with this:

"I would imagine there's some correlation, which seems to be good enough for you."

It would seem there's more than "some correlation," which was my original point.

It would seem there's more than "some correlation," which was my original point.

What does "more than 'some' correlation" mean? "Some" is, after all, a pretty generic quantity. By "fly in the ointment," I simply meant that I figured it would please you, as it clearly pleases JadeGold (and Democommie, judging from another comment thread), to portray gun rights advocates as uniformly resistant to the idea of human induced climate change, but my existence alone obviously makes that uniformity a fantasy.